Give that encounter to my current group, and we'd do one or more of the following:
- Blind the ogres with glitterdust, targeting their weakest save, making their reach moot, as they get no AoO, and their attacks likely to miss.
- Grease their spears, make them drop em, or on the ground so they fall. Valid tactic since their reflex save is down due to Enlarge Person.
- Decimate them from range with bows and low level direct fire blasts, considering their AC is now garbage.
- Have one of us use mirror image, enter melee and soak the AoO's while positioning so the other two combatants get to flank.

What we certainly would NOT do:
- Charge
- Engage in melee on their terms
- Move casters within reach, forcing them to cast defensively

Should they miraculously make all their saves, we are still likely to win, as the magus usually goes next, being the one with the lowest initiative modifier by far, and can now cast mirror image, move in and decimate one of them (he easily does 30+ damage in one blow) with less than 30% chance that he even CAN get hit, and even if they should hit the right image, they still need to actually hit. Then, my bard and the monk/ninja would come in on either side of the remaining ogre, after the ogre has spent his AoO on the magus, and slice him to ribbons for 1d8+12 and 3d6+5, easily taking him down if we roll average (16.5 and 15.5). And if not, his spear will still not avail him, due to not being usable against adjacent targets. Meaning he will have to move, and we would get AoO's that would almost certainly finish him.

In this scenario, I doubt we would get hurt. But there is always a chance that they'd hit the right image and AC. If they did, we'd just heal afterwards with a wand.

Ashiel: You cannot throw more than one alchemical item unless you are an alchemist, btw. But if we say one of the characters IS an alchemist, then spamming napalm the ogres works like a charm.

You cannot throw more than one alchemical item unless you are an alchemist, btw. But if we say one of the characters IS an alchemist, then spamming napalm the ogres works like a charm.

I'ma need a rule citation on that one chief. I checked the SRD and neither the combat section nor the equipment section make any such restrictions. Hook me up with the relevant quote?

I think it's kinda inclued in this:

rules wrote:

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, [...], requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands.
[...] you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move.
Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

Manipulate an Item
Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.
This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door.

Basically unless you have a specific potion belt to quick-draw bottles, it's going to cost you a move action to get those alchemist fires out (even if they are "in easy reach").

I guess they assume an alchemist has such a belt as it's his "thing"?
You could throw 2 if you have two-weapon fighting, but I think it's ruled like any throwing weapon that not an ammunition (shuriken)...?

Yeah, I thought that was the case. There's nothing stopping you from throwing as many as you can carry. Incidentally, splash weapons are weapons. It's very clear of that. Quick draw will work for them. Alternatively, just carrying some in one arm and throwing them with the other is all you'd need to get your iterative attacks.

Folks have been full-attacking with splash weapons for ages. In 3.5, it was one of the main ways rogues kept their damage relevant. A rogue could chuck a flask of acid and get sneak attack with it (this was nerfed in Pathfinder).

Today, there is little to keep acid flasks relevant at higher levels. Fighters cannot effectively specialize in them, and Point Blank Shot is about all they have. However, at low levels, alchemist fire rules the school; primarily due to the 2nd round damage and DR-ignoring aspect.

Ashiel: You cannot throw more than one alchemical item unless you are an alchemist, btw. But if we say one of the characters IS an alchemist, then spamming napalm the ogres works like a charm.

I'ma need a rule citation on that one chief. I checked the SRD and neither the combat section nor the equipment section make any such restrictions. Hook me up with the relevant quote?

Huh, cannot find it. Did I just imagine it due to how bombs work?

But I did find something else that boggles my mind. On the table "Actions in Combat" the act of "Prepare to throw splash weapon" is listed under "Full-Round Actions". Which made me raise an eyebrow...

Prepare splash weapon only comes up in once instance. Oil. Here is the relevant text. The fact they even bothered to mention this in the combat section is rather poor organization, since they didn't actually include anything about it in written text, nor a reference to the Equipment section.

Equipment - Oil wrote:

Oil: A pint of oil burns for 6 hours in a lantern or lamp. You can also use a flask of oil as a splash weapon. Use the rules for alchemist's fire (see Special Substances and Items on Table: Goods and Services), except that it takes a full-round action to prepare a flask with a fuse. Once it is thrown, there is a 50% chance of the flask igniting successfully.

EDIT: Also, on the subject of alchemists, bombs work differently anyway. They create, mix, and throw the item in the same action; requiring a standard action (just add water? :P). Alchemists can chuck normal alchemical goodies with iterative attacks, rapid shot, or dual-wielding (or all of the above) without any sort of special discovery. In fact, most of my alchemists tend to use alchemical weapons as often or more often than bombs at low levels.

1d6+5 acid damage with 6 damage splash is pretty sexy when you throw a few of them at a time.

A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).

Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat.

But I guess many houserule otherwise (me too).

Ah, curses. 3.5 recollection foils me again. :P

In 3.5, Quick Draw as not so limited. Gotta love all these unneeded nerfs to martial characters.

3.5 SRD - Quick Draw wrote:

Quick Draw [General]

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the Sleight of Hand skill) as a move action.

A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).

Normal: Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement. Without this feat, you can draw a hidden weapon as a standard action.

Special:A fighter may select Quick Draw as one of his fighter bonus feats.

You could throw 2 if you have two-weapon fighting, but I think it's ruled like any throwing weapon that not an ammunition (shuriken)...?

You don't need TWF. That's only if you are looking, in a full attack action, to make an extra attack. So if you have a BAB of > 5 and start with one in each hand then you can throw both alchemist fires without needing TWF, likewise if you have a BAB < 6 and have the feat Rapid Shot.

Drawing them is the problem. Not sure why PF decided that they didn't want this or quickdrawn wands and the like.

Ashiel wrote:

Incidentally, James Maissen notes that the expenditure of spamming healing wands in combat is quickly made up by the treasure that you are expected to acquire. That seems pretty reasonable, and you are expected to recoup used consumables as time progresses; so let's have a look at what this means.

Did I? I don't think I even went into this. I just went with your example. Could you please cite where I was doing this, or saying that in-combat healing with a wand of clw extends to higher levels? As to cost.. if you're taking the damage then you are going to need to heal it. The cost is simply the cost of doing business at low levels. If you can afford channels/spells instead that's great but those are better saved as insurance and the wand used.

Now if you want to really go through your little orcs against the atomic 1st level party lets..

You have 3 orcs. Great. Perhaps you can deal with them at range or by spell. Also great.. and preferable. You've given them great axes, which for a 1st level party is an easy way for PCs to get killed in melee.

But many times you don't have a choice and the enemy is right there. Now you have to deal with them in melee.. and anything can happen. It's not a question of average damage, but rather when the hits come. A crit will outright kill any PC with reasonable damage rolls, and two hits will leave a PC very near dead or out right dead depending upon who they are and the die rolls for damage.

A single orc has effectively 18hps via ferocity. This is a sizable chunk for those not invested in melee. A decent damage greatsword wielding fighter can do this straight out, but others are less likely to do this in one hit. Depending on who they are they might not even do so with 2 hits.

Best case is that you can hold off the orcs until the 2nd round for the wizard's sleep spell to get all or almost all of them. But when that's not possible, then you need the fighter up and swinging as it's quite likely that he can indeed perform the melee of the entire rest of the party (as we're looking at rogue, cleric, fighter and wizard for the party). So keeping him up and swinging is essential. If he drops without healing he's likely around -10hps or so and that's bad for a combat that's now possibly not ending very soon.

Again it's still going to cost the same charges on the wand of clw to bring him back to speed, so it's really not a question of cost but rather a question of actions. The fighter can deal the kind of damage to merit that attention.

-James
PS: Oh and I don't suppose that the fighter's AC is as low as 15.. I was just saying that straight up against one orc that horribly bad AC is enough for a wand to keep up with the damage which Ash was saying wasn't the case. Likely the fighter is closer to around AC 20 or 22 depending on whether or not he's using a weapon in two hands. (You can argue that a shield of faith/prot evil spell is nice here and it is, but that's a question of tempo and insurance against die rolls)

Since I keep referencing my 4e group where we have a dedicated healer, it is probably worth noting that in 4e healing at range is trivial. Virtually all of our cleric's heal powers work within ten squares of the cleric. Most battles occur in rooms that are less than ten squares wide or long, so for almost all battles that's essentially unlimited range healing. So she can heal at will from a corner and stay out of range of melee with no trouble. That's much harder to accomplish in PF. Also she can heal up to four times per round using a combination of minor, move, standard and reactive actions. That means even if two or three characters are critted and knocked unconscious, she can easily heal all of them and get them back in the fight. And when I say "heal" I don't mean toss a 25 point HP boost, I mean generally bringing the down party member back up to nearly full or full HP. Her heals typically restore 3/4 to full HP on a single heal. On average one of her heals restores two to three times as much damage as one of our opponents average damage on a hit.

This is one reason that my PF gaming group considers 4e to be a glorified video game. Your "healer" can simply sit back and spam heals all day long, and those heals are so powerful that each heal allows the target to take several more attacks from the enemy.

That is simply not the case in PF. And frankly I prefer it that way. I like to have to think and plan in order to win a battle while taking minimal damage so that we survive the encounter without relying on one character playing wound-whack-a-mole while checking on his email and phone texts...

1) There is no front-line character with AC15. If you have AC 15 as a fighter, even at lv1, you're bad at the game, and you should feel bad. If anything that is not CR=APL+3 hits a front-liner on less than a 10, you are under-equipped.

2) Unless your GM runs houserules, an average orc warrior1 has less HP than a cleric has DPR (barring certain builds that simply do not do combat). The cleric should on average take down one orc/rd even by doing melee. If he uses spells, he can do more.

Again, depends on stats, wealth, and what the GM allows.

Quote:

4) Why are all of James' examples "A fighter and his healbot", and never a group of people that would create a scenario that translates to something I could imagine actually seeing in a game?

2) Unless your GM runs houserules, an average orc warrior1 has less HP than a cleric has DPR (barring certain builds that simply do not do combat). The cleric should on average take down one orc/rd even by doing melee. If he uses spells, he can do more.

What DPR do your level 1 clerics sport there? I'm curious to see how they are doing that much damage. Perhaps you're confused a bit here. You might drop the orc below 0 hps.. but they're ornery and keep fighting..

d20pfsrd.com wrote:

Ferocity (Ex)

An orc remains conscious and can continue fighting even if its hit point total is below 0. It is still staggered and loses 1 hit point each round. A creature with ferocity still dies when its hit point total reaches a negative amount equal to its Constitution score.

Which is why I'm saying that they essentially have 18hps (or 17hps and one final act of potential retribution).

A 14STR cleric with a d8 weapon can deal 6.5 damage on average. With a +2 to hit they hit about 50% of the time, meaning that they need around 5 rounds to kill an orc. The orc on the other hand, doesn't need that long to drop the cleric.

Which again is why the cleric is better off spending his action keeping the fighter up who can deal enough to full drop the orc in one swing. Now if the damage roll is just a little off, then perhaps it's worth the cleric's action to finish off the orc.. but otherwise it's better to make sure the fighter, if he's been hit can be brought back into the fight if he's hit a second time.

Kamelguru wrote:

1) There is no front-line character with AC15. If you have AC 15 as a fighter, even at lv1, you're bad at the game, and you should feel bad. If anything that is not CR=APL+3 hits a front-liner on less than a 10, you are under-equipped.

Exactly right. But that horrid AC and above is where the cleric is able to keep the fighter fully healed against one orc on average.

With the expected better AC he can do better. But he's certainly keeping up with the damage and enabling the fighter to be dropping the orcs which he will do like 75% of the time each round. And the cleric spending actions to enable this is better than the cleric attacking on his own unless the fighter is already healed and the orc is almost dropped.

Kamelguru wrote:

3) Even summon monster 1 is better than healing. Place the summoned critter behind the fighter, maybe do some damage, and provide him with a flanking bonus. The dumb orcs will likely make some attacks against it too, and waste their attacks on something that will disappear one round later anyway.

So wrong. Just so wrong.

If your fighter has been hit by an orc, then he's at around 2hps. You are now taking a full round action to cast a summon monster 1? If I were the fighter I would then retreat and let you and your 1 round poisonous frog (or whatever) deal with them.

You've essentially had the cleric burn one of his spells and a full round action to do little more than aid another in combat. Really?

Meanwhile I would have the cleric heal the fighter up to 7hps, which if he's hit again at least he can be brought back to make another swing that could drop the final orc. Or on a bad damage roll is still even conscious.

2) Unless your GM runs houserules, an average orc warrior1 has less HP than a cleric has DPR (barring certain builds that simply do not do combat). The cleric should on average take down one orc/rd even by doing melee. If he uses spells, he can do more.

What DPR do your level 1 clerics sport there? I'm curious to see how they are doing that much damage. Perhaps you're confused a bit here. You might drop the orc below 0 hps.. but they're ornery and keep fighting..

off-topic:Orcs are annoying. When other monsters would die, they just keep fighting.

off-topic:Orcs are annoying. When other monsters would die, they just keep fighting.

Yeah, amusingly enough the expected time for that cleric to drop the Orc is factoring in the bleeding that the Orc is taking each round after it's in negative hps!

Counting more accurately, that is non-smoothly (and baring crits/ aberrantly high damage rolls) it takes 3 hits by the cleric to kill an Orc from full health, so unless the cleric is simply 'kill stealing' so to speak.. he's better off making sure the fighter who takes 1 hit to drop them is up and doing his job.

If said fighter is at full then given the nature of how much the orcs can hit for I'd have the cleric ready to heal the fighter when he's hit so that by the time that orc goes again the fighter is back to full.

Now when multiple orcs are still fighting the fighter this might not always work, but it does minimize the risk and the time it would take to get the fighter up. Otherwise going right before the fighter in initiative is desired.

If you have AC 15 as a fighter, even at lv1, you're bad at the game, and you should feel bad.

Really? Are you honestly unaware that some of us play the game for very different reasons than you (with very different ways to measure being "good" at it)?

In my view, someone who says that would be very bad at playing the game with us (which is all that matters at my place every Wednesday). I don't care if we're in the minority - it doesn't make us wrong.

I like how people automatically assume that my group being able to defeat stuff is entitlement, abnormal stats, abnormal WBL and abnormal optimizing.

A lv1 fighter with AC15 is one with no dex, no defensive feats, no shield and wearing basic scale mail, which is rather safe to assume any given fighter can afford. I hope for his sake that he deals at least 2d6+9 damage or so to offput his terribad AC.

Steve: The measure is not being the best, then I would say "less than 20", which is more or less what I aim for with my fighters, so they get to grow up to be level 4, where fighters start being fun. The measure is being competent at your role. If I make a fighter that cannot fight very well, I weaken the party, which makes me very likely to be the catalyst for the party's demise. And I cannot speak for others, but my jimmies get rather rustled when I have a character die after I spend hours creating it, and envisioning all his aspect. And I get downright livid if this is because someone else wanted to make their character dramatically sub par because snowflake story hour.

James: Forgot the orc staying power. Well then, that changes priority, obviously. Now the cleric need to facilitate the fighter hitting twice. Remedy his AC penalty when he cleaves and so on. Or at least that would be priority in my mind. In this scenario, I think my players would say a "Protection from Evil" would be the wise choice, then defensively line stuff up so the arcane caster can drop the maximum viable number with a sleep or color spray.

A summon is never there to beat the encounter for you. You need an eidolon for that. The summon is a speedbump/flanker/harasser that reduces the net # of attacks on players, force defensive casting and give the players better tactical choices. If two orcs that allegedly on average do 10.5 damage to the fighter attack the summon, it just took 10.5 damage from the fighter. And with the flanking, the fighter can use combat expertise/fighting defensively without much penalty, reducing the chances of him getting hit as well.

Steve: The measure is not being the best, then I would say "less than 20", which is more or less what I aim for with my fighters, so they get to grow up to be level 4, where fighters start being fun. The measure is being competent at your role. If I make a fighter that cannot fight very well, I weaken the party, which makes me very likely to be the catalyst for the party's demise. And I cannot speak for others, but my jimmies get rather rustled when I have a character die after I spend hours creating it, and envisioning all his aspect. And I get downright livid if this is because someone else wanted to make their character dramatically sub par because snowflake story hour..

Sure. There are plenty of people who play like that and if one regards effectiveness as an important goal of creating characters then creating a fighter with an ac of 15 is failing to meet that goal.

Other groups don't measure success at the game in the same way though and we shouldn't have to feel bad for that.

Steve: The measure is not being the best, then I would say "less than 20", which is more or less what I aim for with my fighters, so they get to grow up to be level 4, where fighters start being fun. The measure is being competent at your role. If I make a fighter that cannot fight very well, I weaken the party, which makes me very likely to be the catalyst for the party's demise. And I cannot speak for others, but my jimmies get rather rustled when I have a character die after I spend hours creating it, and envisioning all his aspect. And I get downright livid if this is because someone else wanted to make their character dramatically sub par because snowflake story hour..

Sure. There are plenty of people who play like that and if one regards effectiveness as an important goal of creating characters then creating a fighter with an ac of 15 is failing to meet that goal.

Other groups don't measure success at the game in the same way though and we shouldn't have to feel bad for that.

Very well, let me rephrase it to "Then your chances for success drop below 50% and you are not likely to survive". And add that I consider characters likely to die while doing their role as failed.

This is not a particularily defensive build in my mind. If I were to be defensive, I would get shield feats, have higher dex, and consider archetypes, for up to 3 higher AC. Or be a bit of a jerk and dip alchemist for shield potions and mutagen for AC30+ when buffed.

And if you are among the people who say "How can you have a SEVEN in charisma?!", please consider that anything below level+5 in a skill is more or less doomed to fail on an average roll, making no difference if you have 7 as a fighter or 12. You are still not achieving minimum success rate for it to be worth the effort.

And if you subscribe to the "having a negative in charisma means you are repulsive and everyone hates you automatically and will pelt you with eggs and refuse you service!" school of thought, please discuss your houserules elsewhere.

Regarding worries about bad Will save: Yes, I have a weakness. All characters do. As soon as I get around to getting enough money, I will start buying potions of Protection From Evil, and be immune to a good amount of mind-affecters, and get a +2 vs the rest. Maybe raise the Wis at lv8 to cancel out the -1. Also have Bravery that will help against Fear effects.

Sure. There are plenty of people who play like that and if one regards effectiveness as an important goal of creating characters then creating a fighter with an ac of 15 is failing to meet that goal.

Other groups don't measure success at the game in the same way though and we shouldn't have to feel bad for that.

Very well, let me rephrase it to "Then your chances for success drop below 50% and you are not likely to survive". And add that I consider characters likely to die while doing their role as failed.

Cheers. I mean I wouldnt argue with you about how the game works or what things are possible when creating a fighter - you're clearly leagues ahead of me in producing characters who are effective in combat.

We just dont see characters as being defined by roles (even though for the last few years we've played predominantly 4E where a "role" is supposedly inherent to class).

I think that by role he means what the character is supposed to do for your group at the current time.

As an example if you make a fighter whose goal is to deal damage in melee, and be a barrier to the casters, but his AC and damage are low then it will be an issue. The bad guys will kill him quickly due to his low AC or ignore his damage and go directly to the party members he is trying to protect.

I can appreciate that, but my point is that the role we require of a fighter doesn't necessarily require an ac of 15. Maybe this kind of discussion is better if I just observe. It's certainly proving educational for me. :)

The implicit assumptions behind "should feel bad" annoyed me, but in retrospect I could have read the comment more charitably so sorry about that.

I think that by role he means what the character is supposed to do for your group at the current time.

As an example if you make a fighter whose goal is to deal damage in melee, and be a barrier to the casters, but his AC and damage are low then it will be an issue. The bad guys will kill him quickly due to his low AC or ignore his damage and go directly to the party members he is trying to protect.

Correct.

Class does not define role. That is why I consistently said "front-liner" in my post, which is a role, not a class. That I used "fighter" in the final line was a slip.

Just like if you want to be the "party face" you don't need to be a bard. It helps, but there are other ways to do that role, as you just need high social skills. (inb4 arguments that having a face is bad for RP; a face is the one you send to represent people in delicate and important matters. People do it in real life. You get the most eloquent person to represent your company, not stuttering Bob from accounting)

Out of curiosity what is a fighter doing that won't require a decent AC?

PS:I have met people that play similar to the way you do, and such things don't work well in my games. They also seem to be very stubborn though. In a way this is educational to me also.

We had a party of "assassins" at one point. My character was a fighter by class but was basically a con man (and a cook, as it happened). Armor wasn't appropriate in that game - our modus operandi involved infiltration and attack by surprise, basically. I don't actually know what my stats were - but charisma was my main thing. It would be very likely my ac was low (I remember it wasn't the best in the party).

I also played a war forged cleric with a 14 wisdom at one point - his role was basically a noncombatant (although he was remarkably sturdy in combat, so worked ok as a human shield). His maximized stat was intelligence and he had truckloads of lore skills.

These characters weren't designed to be crap (and they did have the odd, surprising combination of cool tricks) but they're not going to win any optimization competitions.

EDIT: I'm giving a bit of a skewed perspective in this thread. I also make fighters who are good at fighting. They're not all freaks.

Out of curiosity what is a fighter doing that won't require a decent AC?

PS:I have met people that play similar to the way you do, and such things don't work well in my games. They also seem to be very stubborn though. In a way this is educational to me also.

We had a party of "assassins" at one point. My character was a fighter by class but was basically a con man (and a cook, as it happened). Armor wasn't appropriate in that game - our modus operandi involved infiltration and attack by surprise, basically. I don't actually know what my stats were - but charisma was my main thing. It would be very likely my ac was low (I remember it wasn't the best in the party).

I also played a war forged cleric with a 14 wisdom at one point - his role was basically a noncombatant (although he was remarkably sturdy in combat, so worked ok as a human shield). His maximized stat was intelligence and he had truckloads of lore skills.

These characters weren't designed to be crap (and they did have the odd, surprising combination of cool tricks) but they're not going to win any optimization competitions.

EDIT: I'm giving a bit of a skewed perspective in this thread. I also make fighters who are good at fighting. They're not all freaks.

There you go. If your fighter con-man were to travel into the wilds and take back a fort from orcs, I assume he would don appropriate armor and whatnot, and not go stubbornly to his death because it would cramp his style.

And you can play a cleric with wis 14 just fine. There are enough boons, buffs, summons and utility spells available to not cripple you, as long as you have another contribution than spells that force saves.

The "then you're bad and you should feel bad" commentary was aimed for is people who make barbarians who insist on wearing little to no armor because they want to look like Conan, gimping themselves because "shut up and stop stepping on my special snowflake, you RP-hating fascist!"

No, you're hoping that your 1 round casting time spell that on the following round is giving the fighter an aid other action happens to draw some attacks.

Meanwhile the orcs are likely trying to drop the maniac with the greatsword that's already killed one of them rather than the little eagle that's just appeared. Perhaps you've had different experiences and assign better odds to this tactic, but I don't see it as reasonable for the orcs. Would your players do so if they were playing the group of rampaging orcs?

Honestly the attacks it might draw are against the cleric here rather than the summon. Seeing someone casting and continue to cast throughout the round is an invitation to smack them. The cleric is likely clad in armor so it's not a compelling invitation, but it's still an invitation. Depends how much of the concept 'casting BAD' you extend to common orcs. I figure that level of it seems reasonable, again though your experiences may vary.

Kamelguru wrote:

James: Forgot the orc staying power. Well then, that changes priority, obviously. Now the cleric need to facilitate the fighter hitting twice. Remedy his AC penalty when he cleaves and so on. Or at least that would be priority in my mind. In this scenario, I think my players would say a "Protection from Evil" would be the wise choice, then defensively line stuff up so the arcane caster can drop the maximum viable number with a sleep or color spray.

Oh sure, the wizard with a color spray is great. If he's lucky and spends time moving he could get two of them in it and they likely won't make their saves. That's a great way to deal with orcs as their WILL save is negative. Trying to get more might be rolling the dice on defensive casting and that's not so good for the wizard. Sleep is a 1 round casting spell so could draw fire, but is also a game winner. These are great options. But you're relying on them as your chance for success.

Now your prot from evil (or shield of faith) is a nice option as it lowers the chance of the fighter getting hit twice. But since you don't heal him after he gets hit once and is then at like 2hps, you have greater odds of him being dropped for the count (even possibly killed) if your wizard doesn't save the party from the rampaging orcs.

Now don't get me wrong.. again targeting the orcs with will saves is great. In fact if the fighter is not hit and you wanted to burn a memorized spell then a 1 round duration sanctuary spell right after the fighter attacked will be much better than the protection from evil spell... as it will give the fighter basically a 75% miss chance against them until he attacks. The fight is simply not going to be going on long term and short streaks will determine the outcome. Assuming that the common Orcs' knowledge of magic is simply 'casting bad, more casting BAD' and not how the spell sanctuary works, which seems reasonable.

Regardless if the fighter is hit, he needs to be healed. If the party wizard can save the party that's great. But if he can't then the cleric should be pulling his weight as well and keep the fighter able to do his job. We're not talking about a 2nd level oracle that's deciding between a color spray spell and healing the fighter, but rather the 1st level cleric that doesn't have a direct way to drop multiple enemies other than via the fighter's attacks.

There you go. If your fighter con-man were to travel into the wilds and take back a fort from orcs, I assume he would don appropriate armor and whatnot, and not go stubbornly to his death because it would cramp his style.

Agreed.

Quote:

And you can play a cleric with wis 14 just fine. There are enough boons, buffs, summons and utility spells available to not cripple you, as long as you have another contribution than spells that force saves.

14 Wisdom is cleric optimization at its finest. Wisdom is like the 3rd or 4th stat a cleric needs to rock socks. Unlike arcane casters, most of the best cleric saving-throw based spells are either severely nerfed or few and far between (in pre-3.5, Hold Person lasted 1 round/level and didn't allow multiple saves, for example). Since clerics typically rely on buffs, heals, and non-save battlefield effects, they have little use for excessive amounts of Wisdom except for trying to get bonus spells. But since the amount of Wisdom needed to get many bonus spells is exactly as I said -- excessive -- it's a waste to try and do it (you need 20 Wisdom just to get 2 extra 1st level spells).

All you need as a Cleric is enough Wisdom to get all your spell levels. Everything else is gravy. A 15 point buy optimized cleric is more like 15, 13, 12, 12, 14, 7, before racial mods. If human, then dump Int to 7. Prioritize Strength and wield a 2-hander (longspear is a personal favorite). You get all the spells you need, including your gravy spells at 3rd and 4th level spells such as Animate Dead and Death Ward. By the time you hit 5th level spells, you should comfortably be safe in Wisdom up to 7th level spells easily. By the time you hit 7th level spells, higher than 9th level has been your maximum potential for a while.

You should be able to reach around a +8 Str mod, +7 Dex mod, +7 Con mod, +7 Int mod, +8 Wis mod, and +4 Cha mod before counting the 5 ability score increases you get over 20 levels or racial adjustments, by 20th level.

EDIT: Incidentally, you can easily hit a 30+ Strength if you count racial mods or your ability boosts. Looks really sexy when you have a spell like Righteous Might active. Divine Power is nice too. It can easily bring you to +36/+36/+31/+26 to hit with +26 to damage.

You know, I noticed that a lot of you turn a lot of topics into a "My way of Playing/GM'ing is better than your" debate.

What I have noticed is that a lot of people will read "here's how I do it" and hear "my way of playing is better than yours" instead.

Which is understandable if you think about it. Because "here is how I do it" is generally understood by most people to mean "I do it this way because my experience and analysis has convinced me that this is the optimal means of doing it that I have tried so far."

Of course I play the way I do because it suits me "better" than other ways to play. On occasion I learn a new thing but then that becomes my "better" way to play.

How do you have a conversation about anything at all without the default argument being "here is what I think is better"?

"When I go to work in the morning I take the expressway up until exit 45 and then get off there because the side roads aren't as congested."

"What!? Are you trying to say that your way of driving to work is BETTER than mine? How dare you!?!?"

"Uh.. yeah, actually that's more or less the only logical conclusion, because if I thought YOUR way to drive to work was better... don't you think I'd drive that way?"

Void, what I don't get is when it became some horrible anti-social behavior to express an opinion about something.

What has happened in our culture so that simply saying "I think this is a better way to play" elicits howls of outrage and accusations of inappropriate social behavior?

Of course people think their way of doing things is "better". That's why they do it. If someone tells me their way of doing something is "better" than mine, I don't get insulted or butthurt, I just say "Oh, really? Why do you think that?" Perhaps they're right. It has happened in my life that I've actually been wrong about something and been educated by someone who said they "knew better" than me.

How is it a major social infraction to say "not healing in combat is better than healing in combat"? Why does that offend some people? If someone says "Oh no! Healing in combat is much better than not healing in combat!" I don't say "OMG! How dare you say your way is better than mine!?" In fact I find that reaction to be absolutely unfathomable. Honest debate occurs when two people have differing opinions about what is "better" and through presenting argument and counterargument, conclusions can be reached.

Based on the reaction on these boards and the sheer horror expressed when someone says, "Oh you should really do XXXXX if you want to be the best YYYYY" I can't imagine what discussing religion or politics with those people must be like. Geez, Louise!

What I have noticed is that a lot of people will read "here's how I do it" and hear "my way of playing is better than yours" instead.

When you call someone inferior for not doing it your way, it really takes out any question of intent.

While I realize the thread has moved on, the whole premise of this thread is absurd. You can essentially boil it down to: Don't heal in combat, unless you need to, which is the same as saying Don't walk to that room, unless you need to go there. It really is a pointless statement.

Everything underneath it the only response is: Says who? Unless the OP has played with every single GM, they really have no idea how your group plays the game and/or how much healing is needed per combat.

What I have noticed is that a lot of people will read "here's how I do it" and hear "my way of playing is better than yours" instead.

When you call someone inferior for not doing it your way, it really takes out any question of intent.

While I realize the thread has moved on, the whole premise of this thread is absurd. You can essentially boil it down to: Don't heal in combat, unless you need to, which is the same as saying Don't walk to that room, unless you need to go there. It really is a pointless statement.

Everything underneath it the only response is: Says who? Unless the OP has played with every single GM, they really have no idea how your group plays the game and/or how much healing is needed per combat.

Jodokai, I would say that you have seriously, if not deliberately, misunderstood the premise of the thread then.

The thread is about using healing as a deliberate tactic in combat, and healing not when you "need to" but healing as a deliberate strategy to counteract damage taken.

The counter argument is that using other spells you can greatly avoid the "need to" heal in the first place, and by taking down the enemy faster, potentially avoid healing in combat entirely.

If you take the first approach, where healing is "necessary" you create a situation where healing IS necessary because you aren't doing the other things that make healing less necessary.

Just in case anyone thought your recap was an accurate summary of the debate.

One more thing Jodokai, if I say "I can make a better cake than you can." I am not calling you "inferior." I am asserting that I am a better cake maker than you. You might be better in every other way for all I know. And after all, how important is cake making anyway?

Now, if your entire life self-image is based around making cakes, I can see how this might cause you some concern. But even so, the proper response is "oh really? How do you make cakes then?" Not "Shut UP! Don't call me inferior! How dare you!?"

While I realize the thread has moved on, the whole premise of this thread is absurd. You can essentially boil it down to: Don't heal in combat, unless you need to, which is the same as saying Don't walk to that room, unless you need to go there. It really is a pointless statement.

That wasnt the point of the thread. It was to clarify the position of those (like the OP) who think that healing is often, if not usually, a suboptimal choice.

Whether it's obvious to you or not, many people object to arguments along these lines by proposing scenarios where healing is the best course of action - which doesnt counter the OP's position at all.

This entire thread is silly. People are acting like Clerics are the equivalent of WoW Priests or Druids - trying to match DPS with HPS. A cleric is a caster who can wear armor, wield a melee weapon and heal. Even in second edition clerics did things besides just heal (though unfortunately not much).

Yes your cleric is going to heal in combat. The idea isn't to keep everyone topped up through the fight but to keep people from going down. Crits are going to happen and people are going to needing healing right now. On longer fights somebody is probably going to need in combat healing.

Keep in mind with healers your options are.

1. Play a witch-standoff and hex/cast until healing is needed, then either race in, specteral hand or use the gravewalkers doll to deliver the range touch attack.

2. Druid with one or two healing spells memorized (plus perhaps a pearl of power or two). Seriously are you really going to drop more than one or two healing spells in a combat.

3. Character/familiar with UMD and a staff/wand of healing. Extra bonus-casting from a staff/wand does not cause an AoO.

Touch of Glory (Sp): You can cause your hand to shimmer with divine radiance, allowing you to touch a creature as a standard action and give it a bonus equal to your cleric level on a single Charisma-based skill check or Charisma ability check. This ability lasts for 1 hour or until the creature touched elects to apply the bonus to a roll. You can use this ability to grant the bonus a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Aura of Heroism (Su): At 8th level, you can emit a 30-foot aura of heroism for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. Using this ability is a swift action. Allies in the area are treated as if they were under the effects of heroism. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.

Seize the Initiative (Su): Whenever you and your allies roll for initiative, you can grant one ally within 30 feet the ability to roll twice and take either result. This decision is made before results are revealed. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Weapon Master (Su): At 8th level, as a swift action, you gain the use of one combat feat for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. These rounds do not need to be consecutive and you can change the feat chosen each time you use this ability. You must meet the prerequisites to use this feat.

Restorative Touch (Su): You can touch a creature, letting the healing power of your deity flow through you to relieve the creature of a minor condition. Your touch can remove the dazed, fatigued, shaken, sickened, or staggered condition. You choose which condition is removed. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Healer's Blessing (Su): At 6th level, all of your cure spells are treated as if they were empowered, increasing the amount of damage healed by half (+50%). This does not apply to damage dealt to undead with a cure spell. This does not stack with the Empower Spell metamagic feat.

Personally, I like tactics but restoration is probably better for a low level game. If your GM rules that both Weapon Master and Aura of Heroism require spending a swift action every round, restoration will start looking better. On the other hand

Basically:

Prior to combat: Extended (rod) Magic Circle Against Evil.

Initiative: Pass an extra dice to the Rogue or anyone else that needs a high init.

Bonus Points: Receive blur from a wand of blur (requires that you know combat will start within the next three minutes)

Round 1: Cast Prayer from Wand (or Bless from Wand if low level)
Receive Haste from Wand (used by somebody else). Close with enemy. Possibly take three rounds worth of a combat feat.

One more thing Jodokai, if I say "I can make a better cake than you can." I am not calling you "inferior." I am asserting that I am a better cake maker than you. You might be better in every other way for all I know. And after all, how important is cake making anyway?

First, let me say that in the few posts I've actually read, I saw a lot of "If you aren't doing X then you're doing it wrong" or "If you don't have a Y in your Z then you're not right". I don't want to make things personal, but I'll quote the actual posts if I need to. It may not have been specifically you, but there are a lot of them there.

Now, to get to your post I quoted: This is actually a perfect example, and shows the flaw in your philosophy. Who's judging the cake to determine if it's better or not? You cannot make a better cake because everyone thinks different kinds are best it's all determined by who's doing the judging. Your very assertion that your cake is better can be taken as pompous because you are actually trying to tell people that every judge in the world, no matter what criteria they judge from, would like your cake better. How could you possibly know that? Of course people are going to fight against that, it's arrogance in the extreme. If you want a less combative approach, try: My cake is better when judged by this criteria, and here's why. That gives people the opportunity to say, "we don't judge that way, that's why your cake would be inferior" and it becomes a discussion about the merits of your premise instead of defending against your arrogance.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Jodokai, I would say that you have seriously, if not deliberately, misunderstood the premise of the thread then.

The thread is about using healing as a deliberate tactic in combat, and healing not when you "need to" but healing as a deliberate strategy to counteract damage taken.

The counter argument is that using other spells you can greatly avoid the "need to" heal in the first place, and by taking down the enemy faster, potentially avoid healing in combat entirely.

If you take the first approach, where healing is "necessary" you create a situation where healing IS necessary because you aren't doing the other things that make healing less necessary.

Just in case anyone thought your recap was an accurate summary of the debate.

Okay so the premise is actually: If the healer does nothing except play with his butt until healing is needed, then having a healer is a bad idea.

I still fail to see the need to start a thread to tell people that. Anyone that can count the number of sides on a d20 pretty much has that figured out.

EDIT: I say "your" a lot, but that doesn't mean specifically Adamantine Dragon, I'm using it as a general y'all

Jodokai, and yet there are actually judges who judge cake making and award cake-making trophies.

Again, when did we become such an insecure society that anyone saying "I think this is better" becomes a challenge to our self-worth and self-image?

I think it's sad that people are so fragile that they fall apart if someone says "I think my way is better."

You can tell me you think your way is better all you like. I'll ask you to explain why and if I agree, then I'll adopt your technique and if I disagree I'll say "I disagree." Not "Stop JUDGING ME!"

I'm no longer even talking about healing vs. non-healing here Jodokai. I'm talking about the fundamental concept that it is somehow a social error to express an opinion of something being superior to something else.

I see this all the time in all sorts of different situations. Our culture has decided that judging is a worse sin than failing. And that's a pretty major reason why our society is failing so much.

This specific example is just a mild version of a much larger social suicide pact that the West has embarked upon.